旧约文本互文分析的方法论问题——以《创世纪》第19卷和《法官》第19页为例

IF 0.1 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Pub Date : 2022-07-03 DOI:10.1080/09018328.2022.2114189
W. Krisel
{"title":"旧约文本互文分析的方法论问题——以《创世纪》第19卷和《法官》第19页为例","authors":"W. Krisel","doi":"10.1080/09018328.2022.2114189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The methodology of intertextual analysis of biblical texts consists of comparing two texts to identify points of thematic and lexical continuity between them. As the methodology requires close attention to lexical details, most intertextual analyses of OT passages use the MT version of both texts as the basis of comparison. This reliance on the MT raises a number of methodological concerns that can lead to misleading conclusions. Using the case of Genesis 19 and Judges 19 as an example, it will be argued that most of the claimed intertextual allusions in the latter text were introduced by a late redactor as literary embellishments to what was already a well-developed narrative. Although this conclusion is speculative, it nonetheless suggests that intertextual analysis that is limited to a comparison of two texts in their final MT versions understates the complexity and subtlety of the gradual compositional development process of biblical texts.","PeriodicalId":42456,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological Problems in Intertextual Analyses of Old Testament Texts: Genesis 19 and Judges 19 as a Case Study\",\"authors\":\"W. Krisel\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09018328.2022.2114189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The methodology of intertextual analysis of biblical texts consists of comparing two texts to identify points of thematic and lexical continuity between them. As the methodology requires close attention to lexical details, most intertextual analyses of OT passages use the MT version of both texts as the basis of comparison. This reliance on the MT raises a number of methodological concerns that can lead to misleading conclusions. Using the case of Genesis 19 and Judges 19 as an example, it will be argued that most of the claimed intertextual allusions in the latter text were introduced by a late redactor as literary embellishments to what was already a well-developed narrative. Although this conclusion is speculative, it nonetheless suggests that intertextual analysis that is limited to a comparison of two texts in their final MT versions understates the complexity and subtlety of the gradual compositional development process of biblical texts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2022.2114189\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2022.2114189","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要圣经文本互文分析的方法包括比较两篇文本,以确定它们之间的主题和词汇连续性。由于该方法需要密切关注词汇细节,大多数OT段落的互文分析都使用两个文本的MT版本作为比较的基础。这种对MT的依赖引发了许多方法上的担忧,可能导致误导性结论。以《创世纪19》和《法官19》为例,可以认为后一文本中大多数声称的互文典故都是由一位已故的编辑引入的,作为对已经发展完善的叙事的文学修饰。尽管这一结论是推测性的,但它仍然表明,仅限于对最终MT版本中的两个文本进行比较的互文分析低估了圣经文本逐渐组成发展过程的复杂性和微妙性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Methodological Problems in Intertextual Analyses of Old Testament Texts: Genesis 19 and Judges 19 as a Case Study
ABSTRACT The methodology of intertextual analysis of biblical texts consists of comparing two texts to identify points of thematic and lexical continuity between them. As the methodology requires close attention to lexical details, most intertextual analyses of OT passages use the MT version of both texts as the basis of comparison. This reliance on the MT raises a number of methodological concerns that can lead to misleading conclusions. Using the case of Genesis 19 and Judges 19 as an example, it will be argued that most of the claimed intertextual allusions in the latter text were introduced by a late redactor as literary embellishments to what was already a well-developed narrative. Although this conclusion is speculative, it nonetheless suggests that intertextual analysis that is limited to a comparison of two texts in their final MT versions understates the complexity and subtlety of the gradual compositional development process of biblical texts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Samuel as Jack-in-the-Box: The Woman of Endor as a Hidden Polemical Story* The Influence of Greek Historiography in 1 Maccabees’ Battle Exhortations An Examination of the Sprouting Horn in Ps 132,17 and Ezek 29,21 Daniel’s Mysticism of Resistance in its Seleucid ContextTimothy L. Seals, Daniel’s Mysticism of Resistance in its Seleucid Context . Lanham-Boulder-New York-London: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2022. X + 166 pp. $95.00. Posttraumatic Growth and Deuteronomistic Redaction of Jer 31,31-34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1